Beware - DVLA tightening up on registering Oversize RVs Forums

GeorgeTelford · Account Deactivated

Hi Mick

They never have refused a claim based on size or licence, but I think you decision to avoid is probably for the best.

ScotJimland

DABurleigh

Mick,

My use of the word "temporarily" for a self-importer was simply in order to avoid major heartache and not to lose tens of thousands of pounds if at any point the authorities bounce it. Clearly putting stuff back on makes it illegal again.

I'm not aware of a dealer taking stuff off in order to pass any new registration test then putting it back on before sale. However, as that case showed, should a dealer do this he avoids any responsibility under the Sale of Goods Act where the buyer is aware of width issues. BY CONTRAST THE DEALER WAS NOT EXPECTED TO WITHHOLD SALE BECAUSE HE WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN AWARE!!!!

I think it fair to say that reputable dealers who have sold a reduced-and-legal-width RV are content to replace awnings etc. at the request of the buyer. I'm sure some dealers and MHF members might baulk at that but I have no problem with it - the buyer knows unambiguously who holds the risk and presumably is content with that. But the dealer would have behaved honourably in the RV sale.

Let me say as an aside regarding the buyers of the RV in this case, while I have considerable sympathy for their plight, I think their motives were questionable and they were foolish, and not just with the benefit of hindsight.

Regarding insurance, I did say it was bizarre. The original judge ruled:
"He held that neither non-compliance with the Regulations as to maximum width or the fact that the width of the motor-home was wider than normal vehicles on United Kingdom roads was material to risk, and that, therefore, there was no obligation on Mr and Mrs Bramhill, or on anyone to whom they might want to sell it, to volunteer to potential insurers breach of the Regulations in this respect." The appeal judges, while acknowledging the limited evidence to make this ruling, were content that the original Mercantile Court judge had considerable relevant personal experience of such matters. That's allright, then.

The practical reality you or I might face is rather different. Imagine the scenario. You are making a claim due to costly damage down the length of your coach, or at the rear quarter because of outswing, due to manoeuvres in city streets, whether or not you were to blame or any other driver. The insurance company refuses your claim because the the vehicle is too wide for UK roads. And you lamely hold up this case where a judge said the fact that is was too wide was NOT material to risk?!

As to your own decision, Mick, I think that is very prudent. Should I be in your situation now, as opposed to what I aspire to in 10 years' time, nevertheless I'd be tempted by a Monaco, something like the Cayman in 34ft. Pity there is nothing much shorter. What's a mm each side ....? (I'm sure THAT can be shaved) Wink

GeorgeTelford · Account Deactivated

Hi Dave

How do you reconcile these two views?, both of which you have expressed recently

From above

I'm sure some dealers and MHF members might baulk at that but I have no problem with it

And below is from a recent thread about getting away with a relatively minor dodge when compared to the one above.

I can't see anything wrong with being pleased about the upholding of fair play.

DABurleigh

George,

In the same way I have no difficulty with car manufacturers or dealers selling cars that go way over the national speed limit. The difference is there is no attempted deceit there.

On the other hand, I think there is deceit when a UK dealer sells an illegal vehicle without explicitly warning a buyer to this effect. The dealer should not presume the buyer knows it is illegal.

Whereas a car dealer can presume the buyer knows of the 70mph limit.

Dave

GeorgeTelford · Account Deactivated

Hi Dave

Implicitly the dealer who changes a vehicle just to get past a test and then puts it back into an ilegal condition, both parties are complicit and flouting the law, not maybe breaking the law at a later date, they are breaking the law there and then, which you say you have no problem with.

Yet you uphold fairness and honesty in the other post

I can't see anything wrong with being pleased about the upholding of fair play.

Edit to correct spelling of Breaking

DABurleigh

I see no inconsistency or hypocrisy between simultaneously holding the views of:

a) I can't see anything wrong with being pleased about the upholding of fair play.

and

b) the freedom of an informed individual to choose to break the law and risk the consequences.

But I'd be grateful if you did not further dilute this thread. If you wish to continue to question my integrity feel free to do so by PM, unless there is a clamour for it to be public.

The end.

Dave

MicknPat

GeorgeTelford · Account Deactivated

Hi Mick

I think that in 45 Years, there must have been a few doozies by now.

Hi Dave

This is about your views on the subject in hand, not really of the topic.

I Think I can see your reasoning now, both views can be simultainiously held

You are happy for them to break the law, by temporarily altering the vehicle to comply, but equally you are happy for them to be caught at a later date in a clampdown when the rules are upheld.